Redistricting battle in Texas could hinge on this Supreme Court decision
The core of the Voting Rights Act, which bars discrimination in voting, may be hollowed out in a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, say experts who are worried the court’s decision could weaken protection for minority voting power.
The outcome of the case could have implications for legal challenges to recent redistricting maps in Tarrant County and Texas.
On Oct. 15, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, which hinges on the redrawing of Louisiana’s congressional map and its effects on the representation of Black voters.
The plaintiffs, who in the court filings are referred to as “non-African-American” voters, challenged Louisiana’s congressional district map, which includes a second majority-Black district. The suit alleges that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting power in redistricting, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal protection under the law for all.
In June, Tarrant County commissioners approved a map that will redraw two voting precincts. The map alters the Democratic Precincts 1 and 2 in southern Tarrant County. Precinct 2 Commissioner Alisa Simmons of Arlington, up for reelection in 2026, will be in a Republican-leaning district and potentially lose her seat because of the new maps.
In August, in an effort advocated by President Donald Trump, Texas adopted a new congressional map. The map is advantageous to Republicans, as it will potentially flip five U.S. House seats in areas where voters lean Democratic, giving Republicans a political advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Lawsuits have been filed against Tarrant County and Texas saying the new maps are “racially discriminatory” by packing voters in precincts or districts in a way that will dilute the voices of Black and Hispanic voters, which Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents.
Depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case, some experts see the decisions as potentially weakening the tools to address racial discrimination and reduce the political power of Black voters. If Section 2 is found as unconstitutional, those involved in the lawsuits against Tarrant County and Texas would not be able to use that measure to prove the new maps are racially discriminatory.
What is the Voting Rights Act?
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1965 to protect Black people from voting restrictions.
The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most important achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, ending discriminatory practices such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and violence or intimidation used to deter Black people from voting.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or color. It essentially gives the federal government a tool to use against states with discriminatory voting practices.
In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, ruled that a formula in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of discrimination to obtain “pre-clearance” before changing certain aspects of their electoral laws, was unconstitutional. Section 5 ensures that changes in election laws in states with a history of discrimination do not discriminate against voters of color, either in purpose or in effect, according to the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan law and policy organization. The changes addressed by Section 5 included redistricting, voter ID laws, and polling place relocations.
Sam Hayes, assistant professor of politics and policy at Simmons University in Boston, says the Louisiana and Shelby County cases, along with a 2023 case against Harvard University that ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, neglect the history and lasting impact of racial discrimination.
One way of looking at the cases is through a lens that says racial discrimination and inequality persist, and therefore, race must be accounted for to remedy those issues, Hayes said. Then there is the color blindness perspective, which would say that times have changed since the 1960s and that the law should, too, Hayes said. That perspective would also hold that the 14th Amendment requires consideration of race only in the most serious circumstances, he said.
“There is a major divide in American politics right now, about race, about racial inequality, and about what to do about it.,” Hayes said.
What is the Louisiana v. Callais case?
In 2022, the Republican-dominated Louisiana legislature passed a congressional map due to population shifts from the 2020 census. In a state where over 30 percent of the population is Black, there was only one district out of six that was majority Black.
A group of Black voters and civil rights advocates sued, arguing that the maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Robinson v. Landry. Multiple federal courts deemed that the map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, and the lawmakers redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. The map was used in the 2024 congressional election in which both Black-majority districts elected Democrats, and the other four districts elected Republicans.
In 2024, a group calling itself “non-African American voters” challenged the maps that included two Black congressional districts in a lawsuit called Callais v. Landry, later called Louisiana v. Callais. The plaintiffs said the new maps constituted racial gerrymandering and violated the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
A three-judge district court panel found the map unconstitutional and overturned it. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry has asked the court to rule quickly, ideally in December or January, as the state’s primary election is scheduled for April 18 and the court typically makes rulings between November and June.
What is at stake for Americans and Texans?
Ashley Harris, an attorney for the ACLU of Texas, says there has been a steady chipping away of the Voting Rights Act. The decision regarding Section 5 and the threat to the future of Section 2 reduces the number of legal tools available to address racial discrimination in voting, she said.
Without the protection of Section 2, legislatures across the country, including Texas, will draw maps that can split voters of color up among different districts or put all voters of color into a few districts, so that their influence is limited, Harris said.
“If Section 2 is either struck down or severely limited in this case, we will see the further destruction of districts in Texas which elect candidates of color who are chosen by voters of color,” Harris said.
According to a recent report by the Black Voters Matter Fund, if Section 2 was gone, 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11 percent of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose their seats across the country.
Sarah Chen, an attorney with Texas Civil Rights Project, says people must strategize and speak out by continuing to vote as a form of resistance. The voting power of minorities in many Southern states is at risk, but it does not mean hope is lost, Chen said.
“The biggest thing that we can do, and the most helpful thing that we can do, is if we all voted, we would have a different Texas, we would have a different country, and to take our own votes as seriously,” Chen said.
This story was originally published November 14, 2025 at 4:38 AM.
